PDA

View Full Version : Let's hear how YOU would handle terrorisim!



The Conqueror
04-28-2004, 12:19 PM
We live in a world of armchair quarterbacks. People say "Bush should do this" or "Bush should do that" or "so&so would handle it much better".... etc.

Lets hear what some of you have to say:

1) How would YOU handle the WAR ON TERRORISIM? What would YOU DO if the safety of all of the country was up to you?

Try to come up with a logical plan not just "kill everyone" or "hand it off to the UN" or something. Think in real terms.

2) Would you commit troops? Why or why not?

3) Would you pull the troops at the first sign of difficulty or stick it out? Would you ask for help from the UN? Why or why not?

4) What would be your GOAL to mark the end of the War on Terrorisim. When would you call it over?

If anyone can think of other questions please post them. This could be an interesting discussion if everyone THINKS about it!

FiveOneNine
04-28-2004, 12:34 PM
In Afganistan, I would eliminate the imment threat probably by the same means that Bush did, as would any other good leader. I would not have invaded Iraq though.
I would not conduct a 'War' on Terrorism because such a war is hopeless. Fighting fire with fire does not work. That may seem like an anti-war stance but it isn't. I believe in war in the case of necessity. But in this case, war is not necessary nor is it effective. By fighting back, you fuel more animosity. You cannot eliminate every single terrorist of the world, you only make more.
I believe a change in foreign policies would help extinguish that burning flame inside people that makes them want to lash out against the US.

TranceNRG
04-28-2004, 12:46 PM
1) How would YOU handle the WAR ON TERRORISIM? What would YOU DO if the safety of all of the country was up to you?

I wouldn't stick my nose in any one esle's business.
IF other countries need my help I'm help them equally, w/o having self-interesting goals in mind.
I would make sure others don't look at me as a bully, I'd involve other major powers too and have a democratical decision rather than going in alone.


2) Would you commit troops? Why or why not?

If the majority countries decided an attack should be done, I would committ troops.
IF they don't see the war to be necessary then we'll wait to hear their solution first. Patience and PLANNING a war is important, so that would give time for us to plan a war.

3) Would you pull the troops at the first sign of difficulty or stick it out? Would you ask for help from the UN? Why or why not?

no, once I screw up the order in one country, It'd be my responsibility to fix it. Specially if I was too thick-headed to act alone w/o international approval.

4) What would be your GOAL to mark the end of the War on Terrorisim. When would you call it over?

haha... when the terror is over or declined by much.
in America's case, I don't see it happening unfortunately.

LordNeon
04-28-2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
We live in a world of armchair quarterbacks. People say "Bush should do this" or "Bush should do that" or "so&so would handle it much better".... etc.

Lets hear what some of you have to say:

1) How would YOU handle the WAR ON TERRORISIM? What would YOU DO if the safety of all of the country was up to you?

Try to come up with a logical plan not just "kill everyone" or "hand it off to the UN" or something. Think in real terms.

2) Would you commit troops? Why or why not?

3) Would you pull the troops at the first sign of difficulty or stick it out? Would you ask for help from the UN? Why or why not?

4) What would be your GOAL to mark the end of the War on Terrorisim. When would you call it over?

If anyone can think of other questions please post them. This could be an interesting discussion if everyone THINKS about it!

First off, I would put pressure on Saddam, but I would NOT have invaded Iraq.

Second, I would not have declared a "War on Terror". It is like a war on poverty - you can fight it, but you'll never "win". It's a vaguely defined, ongoing battle. You might as well declare a war on all evil, everywhere - good luck on that one.

I would have put more troops into Afghanistan, mostly special forces dedicating to rooting out remaining al-Qaida elements, and put more money into the rebuilding of Afghanistan. We gave the new government a fraction of what we had promised it. I would pursue more joint operations with Pakistan along the border region.

I would also have put more effort into winning the hearts and minds of the Arab people through serious PR efforts in the Middle East. This is just as important as the military portion of the effort - Muslim terrorists' groups success in recruiting is helped by our own perceived indifference to the will of the people.

Gettin_big
04-28-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by FiveOneNine

I would not conduct a 'War' on Terrorism because such a war is hopeless.

(No offense to religious people, here goes my post)

Bump. Islamic radicals are just too crazy, and as I see it, unfortunately Islam will rule the world and we will all be doomed.
****ing religions :(
You see people, all this **** in the world because of ****ING RELIGIONS!!! BAN RELIGION BAN RELIGION BAN RELIGION!!!
NO JEWS
NO MUSLIMS
NO CHRISITIANS
NO BUDHISTS

JUST PEOPLE! PEOPLE!

I'm going to bed. Take care,
Alex

FiveOneNine
04-28-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Gettin_big
(No offense to religious people, here goes my post)

Bump. Islamic radicals are just too crazy, and as I see it, unfortunately Islam will rule the world and we will all be doomed.
****ing religions :(
You see people, all this **** in the world because of ****ING RELIGIONS!!! BAN RELIGION BAN RELIGION BAN RELIGION!!!
NO JEWS
NO MUSLIMS
NO CHRISITIANS
NO BUDHISTS

JUST PEOPLE! PEOPLE!

I'm going to bed. Take care,
Alex

So true. More people have died in the name of God then in the name of Satan.

Gettin_big
04-28-2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by FiveOneNine
So true. More people have died in the name of God then in the name of Satan.

I feel sick after I see the **** that's happening in our world. What a ****ty world, dammit. :( X 100

The Conqueror
04-28-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
1) How would YOU handle the WAR ON TERRORISIM? What would YOU DO if the safety of all of the country was up to you?

I wouldn't stick my nose in any one esle's business.
IF other countries need my help I'm help them equally, w/o having self-interesting goals in mind.
I would make sure others don't look at me as a bully, I'd involve other major powers too and have a democratical decision rather than going in alone.


2) Would you commit troops? Why or why not?

If the majority countries decided an attack should be done, I would committ troops.
IF they don't see the war to be necessary then we'll wait to hear their solution first. Patience and PLANNING a war is important, so that would give time for us to plan a war.

3) Would you pull the troops at the first sign of difficulty or stick it out? Would you ask for help from the UN? Why or why not?

no, once I screw up the order in one country, It'd be my responsibility to fix it. Specially if I was too thick-headed to act alone w/o international approval.

4) What would be your GOAL to mark the end of the War on Terrorisim. When would you call it over?

haha... when the terror is over or declined by much.
in America's case, I don't see it happening unfortunately.

It would seem from your answer that you are comfortable with putting your freedom and those you are responsible for in the hands of others who may not share your interests. That is an interesting observation. Why do you feel that way?

In my opinion, the UN cares nothing for the US or it's interests. Only for another quite ambiguous goal of "peace". Perhaps both are idealistic.

TranceNRG
04-28-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
It would seem from your answer that you are comfortable with putting your freedom and those you are responsible for in the hands of others who may not share your interests. That is an interesting observation. Why do you feel that way?

In my opinion, the UN cares nothing for the US or it's interests. Only for another quite ambiguous goal of "peace". Perhaps both are idealistic.


IN a world when unity should matter the most, you give some and you get some.
you can't accept everything and expect not to give any in return.

Freedome isn't something that can be solely achieved by one nation's action. The nations actions will decide whether there's a possibility of attack or not. the more neutral you are w/ your partners and other nations, the less chance of being attacked there is.


UN cares nothing for US, because truely deep down US cares nothing for UN or any other country. (maybe Israel)

goblin6
04-28-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
We live in a world of armchair quarterbacks. People say "Bush should do this" or "Bush should do that" or "so&so would handle it much better".... etc.

Lets hear what some of you have to say:

1) How would YOU handle the WAR ON TERRORISIM? What would YOU DO if the safety of all of the country was up to you?

Try to come up with a logical plan not just "kill everyone" or "hand it off to the UN" or something. Think in real terms.

2) Would you commit troops? Why or why not?

3) Would you pull the troops at the first sign of difficulty or stick it out? Would you ask for help from the UN? Why or why not?

4) What would be your GOAL to mark the end of the War on Terrorisim. When would you call it over?

If anyone can think of other questions please post them. This could be an interesting discussion if everyone THINKS about it!
1)First off by revamping the CIA and increasing the human intelligence (agents on the ground) that will help to identify who they are and where they are. Develop detailed and targeted foreign policies for specific areas, you need different policies and stratagies for different areas, Pakistan is different from Lebanon which is totally different from North Korea. Saudi Arabia would get some special attention, and probably would not like it at all, tough ****.I would also seal the borders and ramp up security in all ports of entries, that includes giving the FBI and the INS the resources to track down visa violaters and suspected cell members and deal with them.
2)Troops are always commited even before 9/11, but yes I would again depending onthe situation and location. The Special ops people would be very damn busy I will tell you that much, there would be a bunch of terrorist leaders ending up dead intheir beds and others with the Ace of Spaded death card left on their chest as a warning. Full scale military action would be used when needed, sometimes you just need a bigger hammer.
3)Troops stay until the job is done, but you better believe there would be a plan for the aftermath of ANY invasion. There will be times when you would have to go in without the UN, but would be able to include them in the aftermath with no problem depending on how you handle the situation. But I would not wait around for 19 resolutions with no teeth to be passed before I unleashed the grunts. There would b etimes when you will go in with UN approval, but the UN would not control my decision on when to use troops.
4)That is probably the hardest one. You call it over when the majority of terror attacks around the world has dropped off to alomost nothing maybe one somewhere a month or so. But that is hard to say.

Jcfreak_02
04-28-2004, 02:38 PM
1. First arm all of my own citizens. Have massive campaigns to re-educate the people that they need to work with the government if they want to be safe, instead of complaining when the government fails to keep you safe. Go after the factions and groups that seek to create disarray. Essentially go with the Swordfish tactic. Kill a soldier, bomb a building. Kill a civillian bomb a city. Have counter-attacks so severe that they might lose hope in their cause. Furthermore have rewards to those who do not resist us and our efforts. Educate the people so that they can have a life again and help them on that scale. Revamp immigration so they can do their job, remove all the illegal immigrants that reside in the country.
2. I would commit troops but not in the numbers that we have. They would do much more air strikes than home to home fighting. When they hide, blow up the building, if innocent people are living in that building have a place for them to go, and let them know their home will be destroyed if they do not cooperate. I know all this is harsh, but treat it like a military campaign not a political campiagn. The ends will justify the means.
3. Stick it out, winner never quit, I would request the UN's help and let them display their usefulness.
4. When the enemys of the US are gone the war could be declared over but the greater idea is that as the terrorists are destroyed they cannot be able to take power of the country and when the country is stable we can slowly leave, and leave it up to the nation's people how to deal with disadents.

BigKazWSM747
04-28-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
1 Essentially go with the Swordfish tactic. Kill a soldier, bomb a building. Kill a civillian bomb a city. Have counter-attacks so severe that they might lose hope in their cause. Furthermore have rewards to those who do not resist us and our efforts.

Although I realize the point of this thread is to post your own suggestions I must say I find it quite ironic to have a "Jesus Christ Freak" say "if they kill a civilian bomb a city." I take it you would then you would have nuked Mecca (since its the holy city of islam) in response to 9/11?

FiveOneNine
04-28-2004, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Although I realize the point of this thread is to post your own suggestions I must say I find it quite ironic to have a "Jesus Christ Freak" say "if they kill a civilian bomb a city." I take it you would then you would have nuked Mecca (since its the holy city of islam) in response to 9/11?

Agreed.

Bionik
04-28-2004, 08:47 PM
1) First of all, I wouldn't have implemented "The Patriot Act."

Secondly, I would be even more militarily aggressive and start threatening those other middle-eastern fascist dictatorships/theocracies/aristocracies, demanding that they provide us with all their public records and all information on terrorism. I would also put pressure on those governments while insisting they expand freedoms within their governments.

Edit: Oh yeah, military spending would be drastically increased (yes, even beyond the point it is at now) for research and development of body armor which would make it very difficult to sustain injury and more durable vehicles/weapons.

2) I would be more willing to use air strikes/bombs/missles and in extreme situations, threaten nuclear action, preferring it over the use of troops. But if the objective required more people, I would most definitely add them.

I wouldn't implement a draft -- ever. If we needed more troops that we didn't have, I'd look for outside support from allies and if I couldn't find any, I'd delay military plans. No draft, no matter what.

3) I would not pull troops at the first sign of difficulty, rather I would use more extreme military measures.

4) The goal would be to capture all of Al Queda and revamp all the middle eastern governments either by force, threat of force, or negotiation.

edit: Don't forget N. Korea

Starsky
04-28-2004, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
1) How would YOU handle the WAR ON TERRORISIM? What would YOU DO if the safety of all of the country was up to you?

Try to come up with a logical plan not just "kill everyone" or "hand it off to the UN" or something. Think in real terms.

2) Would you commit troops? Why or why not?

3) Would you pull the troops at the first sign of difficulty or stick it out? Would you ask for help from the UN? Why or why not?

4) What would be your GOAL to mark the end of the War on Terrorisim. When would you call it over?

If anyone can think of other questions please post them. This could be an interesting discussion if everyone THINKS about it!


1. Begin by immediately bombing all of Irans nuclear facilities. Bomb the tools of power the clerics used to crush the 90%+ of the population that hates them. Do not invade, but cripple the Regimes infrastructure and increase aid to opposition forces. Iran is the worlds foremost supporter of terror. Also, approve of Israel using massive retaliation for terror attacks. Bomb Syrias WMD facilities, and Military command structure if they dont comply, keep doing it until they do.


Rescind any protection that Mosques provide if used for terrorist activities, not just housing terrorists. Planning, storing...anything it loses protection. Start giving 18-45 year old, Middle-Eastern males more screening than avg, plane, train, or bus etc. Whatever additional aid Europe gives to the PA, double it for Israel.


Approve targeted assasination of known terrorists or terror figureheads. Death sentences for any non-minor involvement in terrorism. Massive retaliation for any terror attack. A 10,000 lb on Yasser Arafats compound. The same for any Hamas/Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad/PLO rally if said groups have made declaration of war.


Drill in the US to lessen dependence on Saudi Oil, despite enviromentalist and bearded Socialist college professors.



2. Obviously it would take some, but the emphasis here would be on mechanized warfare, not light infantry.


3. No, this action is directly correlated with increasing terrorism and casualties. The UN would not be sought at all, as they have proven virtually useless against terrorists. They pulled out of Iraq after *1* bombing, and yet people want them to takeover Iraq.


4. It would never be completly over, just dramatically reduced in intensity.

blaker00
04-28-2004, 11:04 PM
1) restore the UN
2) get out of saudi arabia
3) get out of iraq
4) get out of afganistan
5) apoligize for overthrowing governments and putting in puppet governments.
6) Stop with middle east politics
7) if they bomb us again nuke em all.

Starsky
04-28-2004, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by blaker00
1) restore the UN
2) get out of saudi arabia
3) get out of iraq
4) get out of afganistan
5) apoligize for overthrowing governments and putting in puppet governments.
6) Stop with middle east politics
7) if they bomb us again nuke em all.


If you took those 6 steps, you would be sending out nukes with in the first month.

Jcfreak_02
04-28-2004, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by BigKazWSM747
Although I realize the point of this thread is to post your own suggestions I must say I find it quite ironic to have a "Jesus Christ Freak" say "if they kill a civilian bomb a city." I take it you would then you would have nuked Mecca (since its the holy city of islam) in response to 9/11? I don't like nukes, but if they attack us from Mecca I have no problem with sending a MOAB at them with proper warning. Christians are not commanded to be pacifists from the scripture I have seen...

supergarr
04-28-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
If you took those 6 steps, you would be sending out nukes with in the first month.


bingo!

I would focus more on intelligence, the good old fashioned way. With agents, agents that speak the language, know the religion and look like them. Almost like the japanese ninja. I would focus on the military as well.

And i'd probably start invading countries, but that is economically unfeasible, even for our power. Hopefully if iraq does really well with its new government, it will create a domino effect in the mid-east.

there really is no other way that I could think of that could handle it more quickly. This is the quickest and most dirtiest way.

hulkman
04-28-2004, 11:49 PM
i would nuke all of the muslam countries then send in special forces to kill all survivors.


then we wouldnt have another problem for at least 100 years

but just be glad i'm not the president ,because i would imediatly destroy any threat to the us, i wouldt negotiate, i wouldnt try to rebuild the enemy's country and make them stroger, i would just keep it simple and ensure that this country doesnt collapse.


but i think busch is doing alright for right now handling it

blaker00
04-29-2004, 12:10 AM
the only reason why they want to kill us is because we've been screwing them over for the past 30 years. If you don't give them a reason to hate they wont hate. If they still hate **** em.

drags
04-29-2004, 12:12 AM
1) Create an alliance with the "terrorists", it shouldn't be too hard because they were the USA's friends at one stage. Then safety will not be an issue. Now with the new allies it will be easy to destroy opposition to the USA.

2) Troops will not be needed as the terrorists will do the fighting for me. When they have past their used by date get them to fight between themselves. Shouldn't be too hard just create a power struggle within their own leadership.

3) Troops will not be needed until the terrorists have destroyed the majority of each other.

4) End of terrorism. You would have no way of knowing that you have destroyed the "terrorists". You would have to destroy the idealogy that comes with being a "terrorist".

The Conqueror
04-29-2004, 03:57 AM
Alright...many of you have had very interesting answers. Allow me to pose a couple of new questions:

5) What do you think the terrorists and their superiors desire? What are their CORE motivations in attacking the United States?

6) When do you think THEY will think that their war against the US is over?

7) Do you feel that islamic fundamentalists seek a "diplomatic" solution to their problems? Do they want money? Jobs? Better opportunity? Overwhelming evidence seems to support more sinister objectives.

8) What are the steps that you would take in "negotiating" with a terrorist. (Definition: Terrorist - One who manipulates through fear and threat)

Thanks

axiombiological
04-29-2004, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
1) How would YOU handle the WAR ON TERRORISIM? What would YOU DO if the safety of all of the country was up to you?

I wouldn't stick my nose in any one esle's business.
IF other countries need my help I'm help them equally, w/o having self-interesting goals in mind.

This is not even realistic. All actions are self-serving, unless one is a slave to others (a true altruist). Selfishness is not by necessity wrong, for if it was then we should all lay down our lives to those who wish to kill us, for desiring to protect ourselves is "selfish".


I would make sure others don't look at me as a bully, I'd involve other major powers too and have a democratical decision rather than going in alone.

What would you do if those "others" hated you and did not wish to see you succeed or even survive? Would you place your interests in the hands of your enemies?



2) Would you commit troops? Why or why not?

If the majority countries decided an attack should be done, I would committ troops.
IF they don't see the war to be necessary then we'll wait to hear their solution first. Patience and PLANNING a war is important, so that would give time for us to plan a war.[/b]

Sounds like you would cease to think and simply follow the pack.


3) Would you pull the troops at the first sign of difficulty or stick it out? Would you ask for help from the UN? Why or why not?

no, once I screw up the order in one country, It'd be my responsibility to fix it. Specially if I was too thick-headed to act alone w/o international approval.

What if your actions did not change the face of the nation that you entered, i.e. it was a total hell hole when you walked in and it was not changed after you "attacked"? How could you repair something that was never right in the first place?

While I am not supportive of our military actions currently (and historically), the above mentality of "collectivism" is no better than global interventionism.

The Conqueror
04-29-2004, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
Alright...many of you have had very interesting answers. Allow me to pose a couple of new questions:

5) What do you think the terrorists and their superiors desire? What are their CORE motivations in attacking the United States?

6) When do you think THEY will think that their war against the US is over?

7) Do you feel that islamic fundamentalists seek a "diplomatic" solution to their problems? Do they want money? Jobs? Better opportunity? Overwhelming evidence seems to support more sinister objectives.

8) What are the steps that you would take in "negotiating" with a terrorist. (Definition: Terrorist - One who manipulates through fear and threat)

Thanks

Bump for any further opinions

CerealKiller
04-29-2004, 10:24 AM
I have some of my own ideas on MANAGING terrorism but I'll be the first to admit they need a little more baking.

Off the top of my head and without too much deep thought:

- I don't think we need to send troops all over the world to "fight" terrorism. It's costly, we don't do a very good job identifying terrorists, and we end up fighting ghosts.

- We need a better immigration and visa expiration check policy than we currently have. I think Pat Buchanan can help us here (shudders). We are a very open country but being so open we are vulnerable. We don't really bother to do background checks or to know when/why people are entering and leaving the country the way we need to. IMO this is rather short-sighted.

- We need to to deal honestly with other countries and do the right thing more often.

- We need to stop arming other countries. We don't seem to be learning this lesson. Our friends today could be our enemies tomorrow.

- We should be cooperative with UN efforts around the globe. A world body is important, I would hope we have learned that we need each other.

- We send troops only if and when they are needed to stomp out verified terrorists, with fair and impartial agreements from the countries affected.

- There is no "end date". Terrorism can't be solved only minimized. Sorry wish there could be but dealing with terrorism needs to be an ongoing process.

- Personally I'd like to clear Antarctica and send all the religious fanatics there -- where they can await their just rewards without causing trouble to everyone else. But I don't think I could pull it off.

Here's a great article I read recently dealing with terrorism. It makes a lot of sense.

http://www.americapress.org/articles/egan-terrorism.htm

goblin6
04-29-2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
Alright...many of you have had very interesting answers. Allow me to pose a couple of new questions:

5) What do you think the terrorists and their superiors desire? What are their CORE motivations in attacking the United States?

6) When do you think THEY will think that their war against the US is over?

7) Do you feel that islamic fundamentalists seek a "diplomatic" solution to their problems? Do they want money? Jobs? Better opportunity? Overwhelming evidence seems to support more sinister objectives.

8) What are the steps that you would take in "negotiating" with a terrorist. (Definition: Terrorist - One who manipulates through fear and threat)

Thanks
I think it depends on the group involved, Middle East Factions want the US to sto supporting Israel/the destruction of Israel etc. They want the US out of all the middle east, no alliances with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. In Pakistan they want the same thing (most likely), a different government no US involvment. Again it varies from region to region, which is why you need to target your foreign policy to different areas.
6)They will declare the war war when the US is out of the Middle East and Israel is gone.
7)No none at all. They understand fear and violence, that is it. They seek to impose thier version of Islam across the Middle East and as much of the world as they can manage.
8)what negotiation they will not come to the table. You negotiate with them thru violence and killing them. If you did manage to get them to talk, the firs time one of the points was broken they need to be eleminated.

bgzee
04-29-2004, 10:56 AM
You can't fight terrorism in the traditional sense. Its like trying to stab somebody in the dark. Terrorism lives and dies by funding. You cut off their supply of money somehow, and they will crumble. How youd go about doing that, I dont know.

LordNeon
04-29-2004, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
Alright...many of you have had very interesting answers. Allow me to pose a couple of new questions:

5) What do you think the terrorists and their superiors desire? What are their CORE motivations in attacking the United States?

6) When do you think THEY will think that their war against the US is over?

7) Do you feel that islamic fundamentalists seek a "diplomatic" solution to their problems? Do they want money? Jobs? Better opportunity? Overwhelming evidence seems to support more sinister objectives.

8) What are the steps that you would take in "negotiating" with a terrorist. (Definition: Terrorist - One who manipulates through fear and threat)

Thanks

There are two THEYs. The leadership of terrorist groups are motivated by power, bloodthirst, and a desire to annihilate the West. Most of their recruits and the actual foot soldiers, though, just fall into it because of anger over US policies, as well as local pressure and poverty - the same things that get kids to join gangs or cults. And that's what it should be viewed as - a death cult that recruits by feeding on the anger and despair of the poor and confused. Fighting this isn't just about military action - although that's part of it - it's about a change in thinking and "softer" efforts to improve relations with the Muslim world. Conservatives invariably scoff at the idea of handling pretty much ANY international issue without just military force, of course, but the only way around it is World War III (which seems to be what some of them want.)

It's definitely not worth trying to win the appreciation of terrorist leaders, and these groups must be snuffed out by force. But Osama and his kind wouldn't have so many followers if we were more balanced in our approach to the Middle East conflict, if we didn't meddle in nations' internal affairs inappropriately, etc.

The Conqueror
04-29-2004, 11:54 AM
I would like to say that I appreciate everyone who has added to this thread so far.

I would like to use some of the information that you have submitted for a research project that I am putting together.

I will keep this thread open for a while but would like more people to give their toughts/opinions.

As my project gets along further I will tell you what it will be used for. I think that everyone who contributes will be pleasently pleased to see that their ideas may be used to make (at least a little bit of) a difference.

Cerealkiller & goblin6, great work guys!

TranceNRG
04-29-2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
1. First arm all of my own citizens. Have massive campaigns to re-educate the people that they need to work with the government if they want to be safe, instead of complaining when the government fails to keep you safe. Go after the factions and groups that seek to create disarray. Essentially go with the Swordfish tactic. Kill a soldier, bomb a building. Kill a civillian bomb a city. Have counter-attacks so severe that they might lose hope in their cause. Furthermore have rewards to those who do not resist us and our efforts. Educate the people so that they can have a life again and help them on that scale. Revamp immigration so they can do their job, remove all the illegal immigrants that reside in the country.
2. I would commit troops but not in the numbers that we have. They would do much more air strikes than home to home fighting. When they hide, blow up the building, if innocent people are living in that building have a place for them to go, and let them know their home will be destroyed if they do not cooperate. I know all this is harsh, but treat it like a military campaign not a political campiagn. The ends will justify the means.
3. Stick it out, winner never quit, I would request the UN's help and let them display their usefulness.
4. When the enemys of the US are gone the war could be declared over but the greater idea is that as the terrorists are destroyed they cannot be able to take power of the country and when the country is stable we can slowly leave, and leave it up to the nation's people how to deal with disadents.



wow...

very Jesus like :)

TranceNRG
04-29-2004, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
1. Begin by immediately bombing all of Irans nuclear facilities. Bomb the tools of power the clerics used to crush the 90%+ of the population that hates them. Do not invade, but cripple the Regimes infrastructure and increase aid to opposition forces. Iran is the worlds foremost supporter of terror. Also, approve of Israel using massive retaliation for terror attacks. Bomb Syrias WMD facilities, and Military command structure if they dont comply, keep doing it until they do.


Rescind any protection that Mosques provide if used for terrorist activities, not just housing terrorists. Planning, storing...anything it loses protection. Start giving 18-45 year old, Middle-Eastern males more screening than avg, plane, train, or bus etc. Whatever additional aid Europe gives to the PA, double it for Israel.


Approve targeted assasination of known terrorists or terror figureheads. Death sentences for any non-minor involvement in terrorism. Massive retaliation for any terror attack. A 10,000 lb on Yasser Arafats compound. The same for any Hamas/Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad/PLO rally if said groups have made declaration of war.


Drill in the US to lessen dependence on Saudi Oil, despite enviromentalist and bearded Socialist college professors.



2. Obviously it would take some, but the emphasis here would be on mechanized warfare, not light infantry.


3. No, this action is directly correlated with increasing terrorism and casualties. The UN would not be sought at all, as they have proven virtually useless against terrorists. They pulled out of Iraq after *1* bombing, and yet people want them to takeover Iraq.


4. It would never be completly over, just dramatically reduced in intensity.


wow... if you were in charge WW III would come even sooner than expected.

TranceNRG
04-29-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by hulkman
i would nuke all of the muslam countries then send in special forces to kill all survivors.


then we wouldnt have another problem for at least 100 years

but just be glad i'm not the president ,because i would imediatly destroy any threat to the us, i wouldt negotiate, i wouldnt try to rebuild the enemy's country and make them stroger, i would just keep it simple and ensure that this country doesnt collapse.


but i think busch is doing alright for right now handling it


aw man...

sometimes some people are just too funny :D

TranceNRG
04-29-2004, 01:00 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Conqueror

5) What do you think the terrorists and their superiors desire?

USA minding its own business


What are their CORE motivations in attacking the United States?


* double standard of US's foreign policies.


6) When do you think THEY will think that their war against the US is over?

when US stops stops forcing its fake democracy on other countries. and when the US drops it's hyprocrytical foreign policies in the middle east.

7) Do you feel that islamic fundamentalists seek a "diplomatic" solution to their problems? Do they want money? Jobs? Better opportunity? Overwhelming evidence seems to support more sinister objectives.

whatever they want wouldn't be a concern for USA after US leaves their lands. Them an dtheir governments can kill each other over their own desires.

8) What are the steps that you would take in "negotiating" with a terrorist. (Definition: Terrorist - One who manipulates through fear and threat)

if after all of the above was done and Terrorist still attacked, then kill them.
cause then you'd know their sole motivation is your destruction.

TranceNRG
04-29-2004, 01:13 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by axiombiological
This is not even realistic. All actions are self-serving, unless one is a slave to others (a true altruist). Selfishness is not by necessity wrong, for if it was then we should all lay down our lives to those who wish to kill us, for desiring to protect ourselves is "selfish".


not necessarily.
it depends what you see to be selfish.
if you don't stick your nose in everyone's business, there'd be a lot possibility of being attacked.
what you;re saying is that, we have to stick our nose, and we have to learn how to fight back due to the consequneces of thr former action.



What would you do if those "others" hated you and did not wish to see you succeed or even survive? Would you place your interests in the hands of your enemies?

no...
but do you believe, Billions of people HATE a nation for no apparent reason.
If it was me, I'd try to find the reason.
people don't wake up and start hating.
also as much as some people would liek to think around here, Billions of people cannot be all brainwashed to hate.

Sounds like you would cease to think and simply follow the pack.

if that is what it takes to bring safety to my people, then I would try it.
if not as I said, then I'd come w/ PLANS before I enter a war.


What if your actions did not change the face of the nation that you entered, i.e. it was a total hell hole when you walked in and it was not changed after you "attacked"? How could you repair something that was never right in the first place?

then what was the purpose of attacking it, if you couldn't fix it?


While I am not supportive of our military actions currently (and historically), the above mentality of "collectivism" is no better than global interventionism.

in my opinion collectivism would open up a safer path for the nation. Less hate towards a nation means less "terrorism" regarding the interest of that nation, right?

The Conqueror
04-29-2004, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Conqueror

5) What do you think the terrorists and their superiors desire?

USA minding its own business


What are their CORE motivations in attacking the United States?


* double standard of US's foreign policies.


6) When do you think THEY will think that their war against the US is over?

when US stops stops forcing its fake democracy on other countries. and when the US drops it's hyprocrytical foreign policies in the middle east.

7) Do you feel that islamic fundamentalists seek a "diplomatic" solution to their problems? Do they want money? Jobs? Better opportunity? Overwhelming evidence seems to support more sinister objectives.

whatever they want wouldn't be a concern for USA after US leaves their lands. Them an dtheir governments can kill each other over their own desires.

8) What are the steps that you would take in "negotiating" with a terrorist. (Definition: Terrorist - One who manipulates through fear and threat)

if after all of the above was done and Terrorist still attacked, then kill them.
cause then you'd know their sole motivation is your destruction.

Can you offer any specifics?

TranceNRG
04-29-2004, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
Can you offer any specifics?

on which part?!

fireman_x
04-29-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG

when US stops stops forcing its fake democracy on other countries. and when the US drops it's hyprocrytical foreign policies in the middle east.


This whole idea of Spreading Democracy is no different to what the Soviets tried to do in Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Africa prior to their collapse. If the US continues this poicy the same is destined to happen.


Originally posted by Bionik
Edit: Oh yeah, military spending would be drastically increased (yes, even beyond the point it is at now) for research and development of body armor which would make it very difficult to sustain injury and more durable vehicles/weapons.


How exactly will the funding be provided, an increase in taxes? Also new armor is in development that is based on ceramic. http://www.ceradyne.com/Products/Armor_Body.asp


Originally posted byStarsky
Also, approve of Israel using massive retaliation for terror attacks.

Since the US vetos every UN legislation proposed against Israel it seems that they already support Israel's actions.



Bomb Syrias WMD facilities, and Military command structure if they dont comply, keep doing it until they do.


What proof do you have that Syria has WMD? If so why hasn't the govt. gone over the border.



Whatever additional aid Europe gives to the PA, double it for Israel.


Now this just sounds idiotic, give Israel more money, you can't be serious. We are already giving them way too much. Hamas and Hezbollah have not gone to Iraq to attack us, which would imply that they are mainly Israel's problem. If Israel cannot exist as a notion without massive support from the US they souldn't exist. But we know that Israel will do fine with out the massive aid they are currently recieving. Two of the top three countries that the US gives aid to should be removed from the list. Israel(recieves way too much)and Egypt(hates the US) are far less deserving that other countries such as Colombia(3rd on the list). The US does not have the ability to take on half the world(SE Asia, The Middle East, Northern and Eastern Africa) alone and win with conventional methods.

Your also forgetting about Indonesia (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=516&ncid=731&e=8&u=/ap/20040429/ap_on_re_as/indonesia_divided_city) and Thailand (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/thailand_southern_violence). Muslim extremists will most likely target Australians and New Zealanders if more action occurs against the Muslim world.

The Conqueror
04-29-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
on which part?!

Mainly, concerning the "double standard" of US politics.

Bionik
04-29-2004, 02:58 PM
How exactly will the funding be provided, an increase in taxes? Also new armor is in development that is based on ceramic. http://www.ceradyne.com/Products/Armor_Body.asp

I would cut almost every federal program and actually lower taxes quite a bit while directing most of the money toward the military.

axiombiological
04-29-2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
not necessarily.
it depends what you see to be selfish.
if you don't stick your nose in everyone's business, there'd be a lot possibility of being attacked.
what you;re saying is that, we have to stick our nose, and we have to learn how to fight back due to the consequneces of thr former action.[/b]

Selfishness is one idea: acting in one's own interests. Its form can be in many variations, sometimes beneficial, sometimes harmful, but this not what you argued. You argued against us acting for "self-serving" reasons, which would be altruism -acting in the best interest of others and not for self-serving purposes. You would not survive long if you did not act for your own interests, since no one is obligaced to act for your best interest.

Self-serving interests do not by necessity imply interjecting into the affairs of others, it can manifest in neutrality. So, I did not imply that we must interfere in foreign affairs, simply that we must always act selfishly.


no...
but do you believe, Billions of people HATE a nation for no apparent reason.
If it was me, I'd try to find the reason.
people don't wake up and start hating.
also as much as some people would liek to think around here, Billions of people cannot be all brainwashed to hate.

You pre-suppose that for problems to occur, ALL of the inhabitants of a nation must despise you. Do you think that ALL of the Japanese hated the US? What about Germany? All that matters is that people with the ability to harm us, hate us. If they do harm us, then we have every right to defend ourselves and eliminate them. And, so long as the elected officials of nations despise us, since they act as "the people", giving them the power to determine our actions is foolish.


if that is what it takes to bring safety to my people, then I would try it.
if not as I said, then I'd come w/ PLANS before I enter a war.

Safety by dependancy? Your people would only be as safe as your masters desired. Without the sovereignty of a people, everyone becomes dependant on the agenda of others; others who have no interest in your self-interests, only their own.



then what was the purpose of attacking it, if you couldn't fix it?

Do you attempt to fix an attacker who threatens your life? Do you not defend yourself if you cannot fix your opponent? Sometimes the only reason we act is to eliminate the immediate threat, not to prevent all further problems from occuring.


in my opinion collectivism would open up a safer path for the nation. Less hate towards a nation means less "terrorism" regarding the interest of that nation, right?

Giving up our right to self-determination is nothing more than slavery, it removes our self-interest from our control and grants it to those who have little reason to look out for us.

I do agree that we are perpetuating problems that we initiated decades ago, through our constant interference in foreign affairs and desire to become a military superpower; you can only poke a snake so long, before it strikes. But now that we are in our position, we cannot act as if nothing has happened and that others do not really want to kill us. We need to defend our self-interests and then work to address the actions which placed us in our current situation.

TranceNRG
04-29-2004, 04:44 PM
hey bro

I actually agree with some stuff that you mentioned.

the only difference in our arguements is that you have already admitted that the world (majority) hates the double standard of Us's foreign policies and you're conveying the solutions based on a belief that this hatred will remain among that population.

The way I was approaching it, is how to reduce the amount of hate that already exist.


But I'll go over your post in detail when I get back from the gym

TranceNRG
04-29-2004, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
Mainly, concerning the "double standard" of US politics.

ok very briefly...

1) Us's alliance with Saudi (one of the most corrupted countries)
2) "Nuclear Ambiguity" agreement with israel, while attacking other countries that are moving toward the same direction as Israel but are behind.
3) a two state solution in Middle East, but accepting all the Israeli terms while not even listening to any palestinian terms.
4) training both Taliban and Iraqi soldiers to fight and how going after the same soldeirs.
5) selling bilogical and chemical weapons to Iraq and now attackign Iraq for having those weapons.
6) Attacking Iraq w/ no WMD, leaving North Korea who admits on having WMD.

and the list goes on...

if you need more, let me know after I get back from the gym

peace

The Conqueror
04-30-2004, 10:20 AM
Many of these are good points.

I would gather from the points you've made that you do not feel that Israel is special in any way. (Not saying that your anti-sem just saying that you personally seem to not see any difference between Israel and other peoples.)

Some might say that Israel has a right to defend itself against enemies that surround it on all sides and that the land is theirs by divine right...what are your thoughts.

Also, anyone else jump in and answer as well.

goblin6
04-30-2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
Many of these are good points.

I would gather from the points you've made that you do not feel that Israel is special in any way. (Not saying that your anti-sem just saying that you personally seem to not see any difference between Israel and other peoples.)

Some might say that Israel has a right to defend itself against enemies that surround it on all sides and that the land is theirs by divine right...what are your thoughts.

Also, anyone else jump in and answer as well.
I am going to jump in here and put in an answer and alos answer some points from Trance's post.

2) "Nuclear Ambiguity" agreement with israel, while attacking other countries that are moving toward the same direction as Israel but are behind.
3) a two state solution in Middle East, but accepting all the Israeli terms while not even listening to any palestinian terms.
4) training both Taliban and Iraqi soldiers to fight and how going after the same soldeirs.
5) selling bilogical and chemical weapons to Iraq and now attackign Iraq for having those weapons.
6) Attacking Iraq w/ no WMD, leaving North Korea who admits on having WMD.
We don't go after Israel for nuclear weapons for the same reason we don't go after France or England. the chances of them using them in a preemptive first strike are very slim. However with some other countries, things are a little unstable. The chances of Iran launching a first strike agianst Israel or Whomever considerably higher. So there is that. That is also why the US and other "world Powers" keep a close eye on India and Pakistan.
I have never heard any Palestinian terms except for Israel to be dissappear or give back every piece of territory they have won in every war. So to say we do not listen to them is silly.
We supported and trained some Taliban in their struggle against the USSR and when the USSR pulled out our support stoped, just like we said we would. I really do not think the US trained any Iraqi soldiers, however I am not sure.
The chemical weapon thing has ben gone over before I am not going to rehash it again.
North Korea and Iraq are two extremely different situations and needed to different ways of dealing with them. You will notice that since the US and North Korea sat down for talks about more grain for N.Korea, they stopped spouting off about launching nukes and selling them and what not. That is how N. korea negotiates. Iraq is totally different, violated terms of the cease fire (repeatedly), from past history had shwon if he had them he would use them on anyone, would launch a preemptive strike on enemies and so on. You deal with each in their own way.
Now for The Conqueror's question.
There will always be support for the US for Israel for a couple reasons.
1) They are the only democratic ally in the Middle East and a strong ally at that.
2)They are surrounded onall sides by enemy countries and undergo repeated terror attacks ( I have posted before on that as well), which gives them lots of support, at least until their enemies change tatics.
3)There is still massive gult about the holocaust, Five to six million Jews dead for no other reason than they were Jewish. And for that reason alone Israel will always have US support.
Is that right or fair? No, but all countries foriegn policy is not fair and always slants in favor of some country or another. Does that mean the US unilaterally supports all of Israels actions? No, but the times we don't there is only a small public statement, the main pressure comes behind closed doors. Sometimes the only thing holding Israel back from a major just killeverything that moves attack is the US, but you would never hear about it.

Joshua_H
05-01-2004, 09:38 AM
The president announces that if one more american solider is killed we will flatten the whole middle east with nuclear weapons. After this happens at the press conference Bush will break a bottle and start jabbing at the reporters "YOU WANT SOME?! YOU WANT SOME?! WHOS NEXT?! WHOS NEXT!"

Starsky
05-01-2004, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
There are two THEYs. The leadership of terrorist groups are motivated by power, bloodthirst, and a desire to annihilate the West. Most of their recruits and the actual foot soldiers, though, just fall into it because of anger over US policies, as well as local pressure and poverty - the same things that get kids to join gangs or cults. And that's what it should be viewed as - a death cult that recruits by feeding on the anger and despair of the poor and confused. Fighting this isn't just about military action - although that's part of it - it's about a change in thinking and "softer" efforts to improve relations with the Muslim world. Conservatives invariably scoff at the idea of handling pretty much ANY international issue without just military force, of course, but the only way around it is World War III (which seems to be what some of them want.)

It's definitely not worth trying to win the appreciation of terrorist leaders, and these groups must be snuffed out by force. But Osama and his kind wouldn't have so many followers if we were more balanced in our approach to the Middle East conflict, if we didn't meddle in nations' internal affairs inappropriately, etc.


What you don't understand about Muslim culture, is that they view discussion, empathy, tribute payments etc as a source of weakness. After the pullout in Fallujah, you have Fallujans dancing in the streets saying its "victory for Islam" and "victory for martyrdom...they idolize death, murder, and destruction.


The only thing they respect is force. How do you think Western countries conquered pretty much every Muslim country except Arabia? This is not advocating "conquering", but blowing up anything they try to threaten us with, massive retaliation. Israel is winning the war on terrorists there, because they make it so terrorism doesnt pay.


The reason we don't win, is the Dhimmi culture of many Western countries with the exclusion of Israel and the USA. They seek to send tribute, deference, pursue negotiations etc. There will come a point in time where all this submission will not save them. They will hate us if we do anything but submit to radical Islam and have no movies and American Women in Burka's and Hijabs.

The Conqueror
05-03-2004, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
What you don't understand about Muslim culture, is that they view discussion, empathy, tribute payments etc as a source of weakness. After the pullout in Fallujah, you have Fallujans dancing in the streets saying its "victory for Islam" and "victory for martyrdom...they idolize death, murder, and destruction.


The only thing they respect is force. How do you think Western countries conquered pretty much every Muslim country except Arabia? This is not advocating "conquering", but blowing up anything they try to threaten us with, massive retaliation. Israel is winning the war on terrorists there, because they make it so terrorism doesnt pay.


The reason we don't win, is the Dhimmi culture of many Western countries with the exclusion of Israel and the USA. They seek to send tribute, deference, pursue negotiations etc. There will come a point in time where all this submission will not save them. They will hate us if we do anything but submit to radical Islam and have no movies and American Women in Burka's and Hijabs.

How do you stop and enemy who will NEVER stop hating/trying to kill you? IS there a peaceful solution? I'm going to go back on my rules for this thread and add a little observation.

As much as I can appreciate that there is a large number of people who think that by simply "keeping to ourselves" we can cause a period of time to go by with no more American causulties it ignores the larger picture.

*ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE
If we back down and out of the middle east they WILL throw everything they have at us. This nation will become much like Israel with suicide bombers and such. Those people DO NOT WANT PEACE...THEY DO NOT DESIRE PEACE...THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR PEACE, FREEDOM, INDEPENDANCE or ANYTHING that we as Americans will REMOTELY recognize as patriotic motivation. They have been taught their whole life that we are the enemy and that we must be destroyed no matter what.

*THEY WILL NOT EVER STOP
It doesn't matter WHO is president. Bill Clinton chose to bide his time by allowing them things...things that they took advantage of in order to launch the 9/11 attacks like the ability to come in and out as "students" as well as all kinds of funding for "education" and "business" endeavors. (The moral of the story is that you CAN'T make them happy by giving them their way.

*THEY DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE AND CANNOT BE MADE TO
Look at the mere fact that they are willing to die over nothing. They are BRAINWASHED and cannot be reasoned with.

Clearly this makes them VERY dangerous.

So what's the answer? IS there a peaceful solution? Historically has there ever been a peaceful way to halt madness. Consider Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini and others. Would the COLD war have drug on for 50 years if we would have gone ahead and bombed Russia after WWII?

For my Canadian friends who have joined in this discussion: I appreciate your views. But you guys will have to realize that the UN doesn't necessarily care for you either. They have their own agenda that is PRO-EUROPE! Watch and wait. Five years from now the world will be a different place...and probably not for the good.

goblin6
05-03-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
How do you stop and enemy who will NEVER stop hating/trying to kill you? IS there a peaceful solution? I'm going to go back on my rules for this thread and add a little observation.

As much as I can appreciate that there is a large number of people who think that by simply "keeping to ourselves" we can cause a period of time to go by with no more American causulties it ignores the larger picture.

*ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE
If we back down and out of the middle east they WILL throw everything they have at us. This nation will become much like Israel with suicide bombers and such. Those people DO NOT WANT PEACE...THEY DO NOT DESIRE PEACE...THEY ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR PEACE, FREEDOM, INDEPENDANCE or ANYTHING that we as Americans will REMOTELY recognize as patriotic motivation. They have been taught their whole life that we are the enemy and that we must be destroyed no matter what.

*THEY WILL NOT EVER STOP
It doesn't matter WHO is president. Bill Clinton chose to bide his time by allowing them things...things that they took advantage of in order to launch the 9/11 attacks like the ability to come in and out as "students" as well as all kinds of funding for "education" and "business" endeavors. (The moral of the story is that you CAN'T make them happy by giving them their way.

*THEY DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE AND CANNOT BE MADE TO
Look at the mere fact that they are willing to die over nothing. They are BRAINWASHED and cannot be reasoned with.

Clearly this makes them VERY dangerous.

So what's the answer? IS there a peaceful solution? Historically has there ever been a peaceful way to halt madness. Consider Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini and others. Would the COLD war have drug on for 50 years if we would have gone ahead and bombed Russia after WWII?

For my Canadian friends who have joined in this discussion: I appreciate your views. But you guys will have to realize that the UN doesn't necessarily care for you either. They have their own agenda that is PRO-EUROPE! Watch and wait. Five years from now the world will be a different place...and probably not for the good.
Those are good points although I disagree slightly with the first one. All religions are religiions of peace, it just takes those with extremee views to turn it into something violent and hatefilled. Islam is a good example of that even if these extremists do not represent the millions of muslims who abhor their actions. There is a danger of lumping all of Islam into one group.

Other than that very good post.

TranceNRG
05-03-2004, 02:35 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Conqueror
Many of these are good points.

I would gather from the points you've made that you do not feel that Israel is special in any way. (Not saying that your anti-sem just saying that you personally seem to not see any difference between Israel and other peoples.)

nope, not at all, just another country becoming to existance by help of British and surviving e/ help of US.

Some might say that Israel has a right to defend itself against enemies that surround it on all sides and that the land is theirs by divine right...what are your thoughts.

it sure does.
I mean ignoring the history, yes, Israel as a country has the right to defend itself NOW.
BUT, their "defense" is worse than any offense. Occupying lands, collective destructions, acts of terrorism supported by Sharon and etc. are NOT defending the country, it's simply stirring up more ****.

LordNeon
05-03-2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Starsky
What you don't understand about Muslim culture, is that they view discussion, empathy, tribute payments etc as a source of weakness. After the pullout in Fallujah, you have Fallujans dancing in the streets saying its "victory for Islam" and "victory for martyrdom...they idolize death, murder, and destruction.


The only thing they respect is force. How do you think Western countries conquered pretty much every Muslim country except Arabia? This is not advocating "conquering", but blowing up anything they try to threaten us with, massive retaliation. Israel is winning the war on terrorists there, because they make it so terrorism doesnt pay.


The reason we don't win, is the Dhimmi culture of many Western countries with the exclusion of Israel and the USA. They seek to send tribute, deference, pursue negotiations etc. There will come a point in time where all this submission will not save them. They will hate us if we do anything but submit to radical Islam and have no movies and American Women in Burka's and Hijabs.

That's some pretty propaganda there .... and that's all it is.

If you honestly think that the dream of every Muslim in the Middle East is to see America submit to radical Islam and stop making Hollywood movies and Coke, you must be blind to how they actually live. Most of the population of these nations which you say hate the West are still watching our movies, wearing cheap knockoffs of our clothes, eating our food, etc. They WANT what we have - they don't want to destroy it.

The average citizen of Egypt, Jordan, etc. is not concerned with seeing the US conquered by Islam. They do not think of themselves as being in continuous, all-out war with the West. They're concerned about their family, their country, their people, and their culture. Do they dislike or hate the US? Yes, in varying degrees, because the US is seen - sometimes justifiably, sometimes not - as an impediment to their own success and prosperity. Leaders in the Arab nations exploit this to their own benefit (but carefully so; they need to trade with us, of course). And terrorist groups definitely exploit this for their own benefit, recruiting the poor and angry to serve as cannon fodder for their own war.

Terrorist should not be given an inch. But most of the common folk in the Middle East are not terrorists - and yet every time we piss them off, we create more.

toastynoodles
05-03-2004, 08:07 PM
This is just a dam religion war.If god let his own son die and suffer just think what he will let happen to u ,the saved and unsaved people of the world all will meet him,look at what happen to the jews his own people he let the holocast happen.


THE bible is the oldest and most acc history book there is and few read it ?KILLing has been around since kane&able so what makes people think that its going to stop?its the flesh that seeks war not the soul of the saved man.

hulkman
05-03-2004, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Joshua_H
The president announces that if one more american solider is killed we will flatten the whole middle east with nuclear weapons. After this happens at the press conference Bush will break a bottle and start jabbing at the reporters "YOU WANT SOME?! YOU WANT SOME?! WHOS NEXT?! WHOS NEXT!"

that would be great, to bad it wont happen

hulkman
05-03-2004, 09:43 PM
i like my idea best, it solves everything

Starsky
05-03-2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon
That's some pretty propaganda there .... and that's all it is.

If you honestly think that the dream of every Muslim in the Middle East is to see America submit to radical Islam and stop making Hollywood movies and Coke, you must be blind to how they actually live. Most of the population of these nations which you say hate the West are still watching our movies, wearing cheap knockoffs of our clothes, eating our food, etc. They WANT what we have - they don't want to destroy it.

The average citizen of Egypt, Jordan, etc. is not concerned with seeing the US conquered by Islam. They do not think of themselves as being in continuous, all-out war with the West. They're concerned about their family, their country, their people, and their culture. Do they dislike or hate the US? Yes, in varying degrees, because the US is seen - sometimes justifiably, sometimes not - as an impediment to their own success and prosperity. Leaders in the Arab nations exploit this to their own benefit (but carefully so; they need to trade with us, of course). And terrorist groups definitely exploit this for their own benefit, recruiting the poor and angry to serve as cannon fodder for their own war.

Terrorist should not be given an inch. But most of the common folk in the Middle East are not terrorists - and yet every time we piss them off, we create more.



You bring up a good point. While simultaneously taking advantage of Western culture, they hate it. This is why you see Arab kids in Yankees baseball caps burning American flags. Some of the Youth in those societies want those things, but that doesn't exclude them from hating America.


Most of the Middle-East, government and public, rabidly support a racism against Jews. Saudi's have banned Jews from the country, and who knows how many other governments do the same. They say things to us one day, and the next day they are screaming slay the Jews, slay the Americans, strike down the Great Harlot and Great Satan with the sword of Islam etc. Its not *rare* and if you think it is, you operate in a peacenik dream world.


Secondly, none of the post implies they all support terrorist attacks are the destruction of the West. But 10-15% of the population minimum supports these acts, which is grossly and exceptionally higher than any other religion supporting mass murder. The problem is the passive, if not supportive attitude of the Middle East toward mass murder, hostages, mutilation, and general evil.

TranceNRG
05-03-2004, 11:26 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Starsky
You bring up a good point. While simultaneously taking advantage of Western culture, they hate it. This is why you see Arab kids in Yankees baseball caps burning American flags. Some of the Youth in those societies want those things, but that doesn't exclude them from hating America.

they hate America for its unfair foreign policies.
they don't hate American people or its culture.



]

The Conqueror
05-04-2004, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by TranceNRG


it sure does.
I mean ignoring the history, yes, Israel as a country has the right to defend itself NOW.
BUT, their "defense" is worse than any offense. Occupying lands, collective destructions, acts of terrorism supported by Sharon and etc. are NOT defending the country, it's simply stirring up more ****.

Many feel that the land they are taking is theirs by divine right.

TranceNRG
05-04-2004, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
Many feel that the land they are taking is theirs by divine right.


Is occupying a land , oppressing a nation, killing civilians, collective destruction of houses and etc. part of their "divine right" too?

The Conqueror
05-04-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by TranceNRG
Is occupying a land , oppressing a nation, killing civilians, collective destruction of houses and etc. part of their "divine right" too?

Again, in the mind of some it is. In the bible God told them to utterly destroy the nations who occupied that land. Also that land would be theirs throughout their generations.

hulkman
05-04-2004, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
Again, in the mind of some it is. In the bible God told them to utterly destroy the nations who occupied that land. Also that land would be theirs throughout their generations.


yeah but they didnt so , its not theirs.

the only way it would have been theirs is if they did that, it can still be their but theirs going to be a lot more killing then what there previously would have been and the usa would end up stoping it and considering it terrorism

The Conqueror
05-05-2004, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by hulkman
yeah but they didnt so , its not theirs.

the only way it would have been theirs is if they did that, it can still be their but theirs going to be a lot more killing then what there previously would have been and the usa would end up stoping it and considering it terrorism

The act of failing to obey DID NOT disqualify them. That land was only promised to them because of ONE of their forefathers....Abraham. God knew that they (Israel) were a "stiffnecked" and "backsliding" people but Abraham was faithful AND obedient and God promised him that his heirs would inherit Palestein.

I think one of the major points is that Israel continually disobeyed and God gave them up to be taken into captivity several times. EVERY time He restored them they only sinned again and finally we see that the Jews will have to repent before the land is ultimately theirs again.

Crimson-Model
05-05-2004, 10:19 PM
I'm a little late but.

Stop the US involvement politically in the Middle East. This includes the military, "foreign aid", and sticking your nose into their governments. The US will then have free trade with all countries(and the middle east).

This will have the effect of:

Revealing Israel to be a third world nation without its host(the US taxpayer).
The zionists will lose power, moderates for peace will rise up as the funds for a powerful israeli military dry up.
Real dialog would occur between Palestinians and peaceful israelis.
With the change of government in Israel/Palestine, the arab/muslim nations begin to tenatively have relationships with the Modern State of New Judea(combined Palestine/Israel). Eventually the people in the Middle East realize they were all dupes in a game of political chess being conducted in London and Washington D.C.
The harsher regimes in the arab world are displaced as their western military and political support is withdrawn. Brief revolutions occur in Saudi arabia, Turkey and Pakistan.
The artificial country of Iraq is dissolved and in it's place are three smaller nations: Kurdistan(with parts of Turkey), Ali-stan(shiites) and Al-Sunni. Civil war pressures are removed and friendly communication is once again a reality.

something like that.

Crimson-Model
05-05-2004, 10:23 PM
OR setup the whole Middle-East as one state under a dictator like Saddam. During his reign (pre Iran-Iraq war) Iraq was the most flourishing and socially advanced country in the region. It was also the most culturally varied, with muslims (sunni and shiites), christians and jews ( ) living together. This was accomplished because if you stepped out of line, you got punished. Only problem with this is that a lot of people can die in the process.
Hmmm...

Interestingly Frank Herbert proposes the dictator option in his Dune series which althought set in the far future is could be interpreted as an allegory for the middle east since it is a desert planet which happens to hold a very valuable commodity that is needed to power the spaceships and other elements of the empire.

His theory is that if people are given a common enemy, the dictator, their own differences will be unimportant and they will become united. And as you say swift retribution for acts of disobedience is important to break the cycles of violence.

The Conqueror
05-26-2004, 11:45 AM
It's now 5/26/04.

The headlines now say that terroists are once again in full form (like pre 9/11) Can we do something more?

BIONIC MAN
05-26-2004, 05:53 PM
completely untie israel hands , let the terroists know israel is a democracy like america and a true friend in the war on terror. push all islamic synagogues out of america and clerics of the terroist religion. go in to schools and places of worship that support islamic hate shut them down world wide . allow only christian schools in arab countries , funny but it would work eventually. the terroist bombed the cole,trade center twice and pentagon and tried to get another plane into the capital or white house . listen piss on them LETS ROLL

FiveOneNine
05-26-2004, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by BIONIC MAN
completely untie israel hands , let the terroists know israel is a democracy like america and a true friend in the war on terror. push all islamic synagogues out of america and clerics of the terroist religion. go in to schools and places of worship that support islamic hate shut them down world wide . allow only christian schools in arab countries , funny but it would work eventually. the terroist bombed the cole,trade center twice and pentagon and tried to get another plane into the capital or white house . listen piss on them LETS ROLL

You're ridiculous. Go jump in a lake.

Pericles
05-27-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by The Conqueror
Let's hear how YOU would handle terrorisim!

With a few fully MIRVed Minuteman III ICBMs.

Viking22
05-27-2004, 09:41 AM
To catch rats, you have to be rats. This is a loosley organized outfit here. It can be infiltrated and it can be caused to turn against itself. Break apart and start warring with itself.

Keep the dumbass media as well as the dumbass public in the dark. Nobody needs to know how we're getting the job done. They just need to know the job IS in fact getting done.

Contrary to the media and seemingly the entire democratic party who are shocked and apalled on a daily basis, I don't care if we use means that are 100 times more ruthless than that of the terrorists. If it strengthens the security of our nations and can break the will of those who would attack us, F'n do it.

When terrorists see their own getting fed into woodchippers in mass quantities on al jazeera with the caption, "This is what happens to terrorists" they'll eventually realize their going down a dead end path and ****ing with the wrong people. Much quicker than when they see our namby pamby lawmakers criticize and cry about our militarys means of achieving an objective effectively. Ted Kennedy needs to eat a F'n bullet.

The Conqueror
05-27-2004, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Viking22
To catch rats, you have to be rats. This is a loosley organized outfit here. It can be infiltrated and it can be caused to turn against itself. Break apart and start warring with itself.

Keep the dumbass media as well as the dumbass public in the dark. Nobody needs to know how we're getting the job done. They just need to know the job IS in fact getting done.

Contrary to the media and seemingly the entire democratic party who are shocked and apalled on a daily basis, I don't care if we use means that are 100 times more ruthless than that of the terrorists. If it strengthens the security of our nations and can break the will of those who would attack us, F'n do it.

When terrorists see their own getting fed into woodchippers in mass quantities on al jazeera with the caption, "This is what happens to terrorists" they'll eventually realize their going down a dead end path and ****ing with the wrong people. Much quicker than when they see our namby pamby lawmakers criticize and cry about our militarys means of achieving an objective effectively. Ted Kennedy needs to eat a F'n bullet.

"Swordfish"-style counter-terrorism. I love it!

Kagh_t
05-27-2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by BIONIC MAN
completely untie israel hands , let the terroists know israel is a democracy like america and a true friend in the war on terror. push all islamic synagogues out of america and clerics of the terroist religion. go in to schools and places of worship that support islamic hate shut them down world wide . allow only christian schools in arab countries , funny but it would work eventually. the terroist bombed the cole,trade center twice and pentagon and tried to get another plane into the capital or white house . listen piss on them LETS ROLL

I do hope that was sarcastic, or i'll have to give you a slap.

personally, i'm an advocate of just sending in the SAS or whatever, let them do what they need to do without scrutiny, and then just sit back and enjoy.

user4165146510
05-27-2004, 03:40 PM
- Current nukes will take out 100 square miles. Gone. Liquifies. wasteland...


- We have "mini nukes" we need to use.They explode staright up. Long narrow mushroom cloud. They sacre the sh*t out of people in surrounding areas. they are more for scare than anything else.

USE THEM!

user4165146510
05-27-2004, 03:46 PM
swordfish style....

FiveOneNine
05-27-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by tiger20
- Current nukes will take out 100 square miles. Gone. Liquifies. wasteland...


- We have "mini nukes" we need to use.They explode staright up. Long narrow mushroom cloud. They sacre the sh*t out of people in surrounding areas. they are more for scare than anything else.

USE THEM!

The war on terrorism is a war against a select few, not the whole country. Sacrificing civilian lives to kill a terrorist is very hypocritical when the grounds for killing is a threat to civilians.

wayoutwest
05-27-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by FiveOneNine
The war on terrorism is a war against a select few, not the whole country. Sacrificing civilian lives to kill a terrorist is very hypocritical when the grounds for killing is a threat to civilians.

cheers

irpker
05-27-2004, 09:11 PM
"...We must make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."-Gabriel.

eric9c1
05-27-2004, 09:14 PM
Great movie :)

Kagh_t
05-28-2004, 02:41 AM
Since we seem to be using nukes to clear out terrorists, how about a couple of neutron bombs?

The Conqueror
05-28-2004, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by irpker
"...We must make terrorism so horrific that it becomes unthinkable to attack Americans."-Gabriel.

I was trying to think of that exact quote....I may add it to my sig.

user4165146510
02-26-2005, 08:41 PM
"Let's hear how YOU would handle terrorisim!"

--> I'd send one man to the middle east....


Jack Bauer.

Xanatos
02-26-2005, 09:00 PM
i would nuke all of the muslam countries then send in special forces to kill all survivors.


then we wouldnt have another problem for at least 100 years

but just be glad i'm not the president ,because i would imediatly destroy any threat to the us, i wouldt negotiate, i wouldnt try to rebuild the enemy's country and make them stroger, i would just keep it simple and ensure that this country doesnt collapse.


but i think busch is doing alright for right now handling it

You don't have any chances of becoming a president with remarks such as that. I'm not worried of people with the same viewpoint as yours making the office. Maybe if Iraq was still around and he was looking for a successor, then you'd fit right in.

Xanatos
02-26-2005, 09:03 PM
completely untie israel hands , let the terroists know israel is a democracy like america and a true friend in the war on terror. push all islamic synagogues out of america and clerics of the terroist religion. go in to schools and places of worship that support islamic hate shut them down world wide . allow only christian schools in arab countries , funny but it would work eventually. the terroist bombed the cole,trade center twice and pentagon and tried to get another plane into the capital or white house . listen piss on them LETS ROLL

I'm assuming you're asking for World War 3. Thankfully, people such as you won't make political decisions (your viewpoint seems less different than that of hulkman).

JBDW
02-26-2005, 09:16 PM
The war on terrorism is a war against a select few, not the whole country. Sacrificing civilian lives to kill a terrorist is very hypocritical when the grounds for killing is a threat to civilians.

Cheers.

Cerulean
02-28-2005, 01:28 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Conqueror

5) What do you think the terrorists and their superiors desire?

USA minding its own business
?[/b]

.
We were minding out own buisness till someone had the bright idea of flying two planes into the Trade Center. You can ultimately thank our ole pal Osama for stirring up a hornets nest.

Ruthless4Life
02-28-2005, 02:39 AM
Nuke the whole human race and voila, no more terrorism.

DanMc
02-28-2005, 06:47 AM
Say the entire region is roughly the size of Texas so turn that region into a vast burnt out waste land at the push of a button... No more pinheads bitching about the losses of American lives...

The Conqueror
07-08-2005, 09:12 AM
I thought a bump might be in order in light of the London bombings

Wotan
07-08-2005, 09:46 AM
Well, if I were in charge of the US, I would completely stop supporting Israel. That would greatly reduce terrorism towards the US, since we all know that the main reason the Islamic world hates the US is because of the US' support for Israel. And I would encourage England, Canada, and Australia to follow suit.

Ruthless4Life
07-08-2005, 10:14 AM
I would nuke the whole world. No more terrorism. As a matter of fact, no more cancerous humans.

NuggzTheNinja
07-08-2005, 11:28 AM
I'd draw a massive amount of funding toward alternative energy sources, then let the ME terrorize itself into poverty.

Boxman
07-08-2005, 12:38 PM
Let's hear how YOU would handle terrorisim!

How would I have handled terrorism? Well for starters, I'd have finished the job in Afghanistan and Pakistan, instead of invading Iraq. Pakistan's army and intelligence services created the Taliban and supported Al-Queda up until 9/11, and never fully got on board the "war on terror". Rather than letting that nest of vipers off the hook, I'd have finished the job over there, even if it meant going to war against Pakistan.

As for the Middle East, instead of invading Iraq I'd have co-opted Saddam as an ally, who would have been more than happy to cooperate in exchange for a lifting of sanctions. Saddam would have enthusiastically pursued Islamic radicals and would have allowed unfettered UN inspections if we had just agreed to lift the oil sanctions and stop bombing them.

As for Saudi Arabia, rather than licking their asses and letting them get away with sponsoring terrorism, I'd have put big-time pressure on them to straighten up and fly right. It wouldn't be an emtpy threat, either.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were, and are, the major threat sources when it comes to Islamic terrorism and militancy in the world today. Any so called "war on terror" that fails to tackle those countries is doomed to failure.

Anyway if things had been done as I described, we'd have mostly neutralized the Islamic cause and would have maintained international support. The muslims would face a civilized world united against them. The US would not be hated by friend and foe alike, and would still have credibility.

Hartski
07-08-2005, 12:54 PM
Dammit, all this talk about "Swordfish" is making me think of Halle Berry's boobies.

Mmmmmmmm..............boobies..................*dr ool*







Anyway, I think we should give everyone in the Mid-East a quad with a Mini-gun on it, and 3,000 rounds of ammo. Then we pull back for 3 months and wait to see who's left, then we buy the oil from them.

The Big Unit
07-08-2005, 01:03 PM
First of all, ban religion worldwide.

Second of all, do it like the Russians do. Have you ever seen those videos what the anti-terrorist police does when they catch them?? They're all KGB rejects because they've gone insane and stuff like that. When they catch a terrorist they beat them with rubber hoses, and open the fire hose on them naked in a cold rat infested **** hole Siberian prison where they will rot away day by day but are only kept alive so that they can suffer another day and give information about where their leaders are.

Something like that.

Hartski
07-08-2005, 01:09 PM
When they catch a terrorist they beat them with rubber hoses, and open the fire hose on them naked in a cold rat infested **** hole.


****, they do that in County Jail.

locknid
07-08-2005, 02:18 PM
There is one simple solution I would employ to fight terrorism. I would stop backing Isreal, I would pull most everything out of the middle east and find an alternate form of fuel. That region is so messed up religiously its not even funny. Its kinda sad that the most religious part of the world also has the most problems and seems to hate everyone that doesn't believe the way they do. I never see the war on terror ending because I have seen how the middle east has acted my entire life. The entire region is almost hopeless and so is that damn religion.

Like bill mahar said. Yes Christianity does have its fundamentalists but they are just FUNNY. they don't go blowing up ****(well a couple times) and you don't see christian suicide bombers.

Islamic fundies are freakin crazy and that religion makes a lot of crazy people. i am not saying that everyone in that religion is bad or crazy but it has the greatest potential to go south real quick. Islamic terrorist attacks out number other religious terrorist attacks by so much its not even funny.

In no way do I actually believe what I am about to say to be good for the world and the first post said not to do this but I have to say the world would be a better place if the middle east was nuked and could be rebuilt and lived in by much more normal people. I saw a TV special last night on Discovery times which interviewed Jewish kids in isreal and palastinian kids and showed whats going on. There were kids that were not even 10 years old saying how they wanted to kill these people, giving graphic details which sounded like a confession of a serial killer instead of a 10 year old kid. I don't care how many people say islam is a peaceful religion, look it obviously isn't and the more I see from the middle east the more people support the actions of the terrorists.

Anyways sorry for the rant but to end terrorism I would pull everything out of the middle east, find an alternate fuel source, I mean come on we could have found something with that 300 billion we have spent on the war instead of trying to get more oil and save a freakin messed up reigion. It is impossible to fight with them because they turn everything into religion. Even if something has nothing to do with religion the middle east turns it into a freakin jihad. They are also cowards and can not fight a real way. They have to dress up like civilians and bomb innocent people. god forbid they get near the big bad people with guns and tanks. They have to set road side bombs and play dead until they blow themselves up when soldiers get close.

Debaser
07-08-2005, 02:36 PM
Debaser's simple ways to stop terrrorism:

-Put more backing into alternative fuel sources. We have the technology and we could have had it years ago but we were picking our asses the whole time. Then we won't have to have much of a presence in the ME. We also won't be supporting corrupt regimes.

-Stop supporting Israel, at least to the extent that we have.

-Fight al-Qaeda, not Iraq. All those resources for Iraq could have gone to fighting al-Q. Though it is good that Saddam is gone but having our presence there until 2009 or so makes me wonder our real reasons for being there. Get rid of Saddam and his henchmen and get the F out of there.

-This is our of our control, but have UN do more than what they're doing to stabilize peace. Rwawanda anyone? What the hell did the UN do for them. Oh, right, they went in and left the next week while people were getting murdered at an alarming rate. Pussies.

The US, UN and other free countries of the world should put pressure on these countries to have democratic reforms. The ME would have absolutley no chance if everyone worked together, instead we go in alone which is stupid. With these recent attacks in London, hopefully we'll have a more united front. I do remember Spain. That didn't go too well in fighting for freedom and terrorism - they just gave in.

locknid
07-08-2005, 03:49 PM
-Fight al-Qaeda, not Iraq. All those resources for Iraq could have gone to fighting al-Q. Though it is good that Saddam is gone but having our presence there until 2009 or so makes me wonder our real reasons for being there. Get rid of Saddam and his henchmen and get the F out of there.

Last I heard its going to be at least 2012 before we are out of iraq according to the current situation and the pace things are going at.

PowerSwede
07-08-2005, 04:12 PM
Arrange with all neighbouring countries to comply and supply own troops, seal of all borders, hunt them down using guerilla combat strategics, capture some, kill the rest.

Use the small troop strategy, sweep combat from the south to the north, kill them.

LEAVE Afghanistan then, employ troops inside of SA, they can cooperate or be gone, kill off the cells in there.

The rest of the ME, the message is clear, deal with it or we will.

How was it handled, invasion of one nation that harboured some of the group that committed the atrocities then pulled troops while the group was still not caught while invading a country upon false pretenses and let's get this straight, the war on Iraq did absolutely NOTHING to fight terrorism, perhaps in 12 years it can be useful as a base, but i sincerely doubt the US is EVER going to be able to use it as such, and i believe that the US will be gone from Iraq and have created more haters than ever before they eventually have to leave.

To combat terrorism you have to strike at the terrorists, not blindly wherever you feel comfortable striking, you want to win the fight you have to fight the fight.

drstrangepimp
07-08-2005, 07:46 PM
We live in a world of armchair quarterbacks. People say "Bush should do this" or "Bush should do that" or "so&so would handle it much better".... etc.

Lets hear what some of you have to say:

1) How would YOU handle the WAR ON TERRORISIM? What would YOU DO if the safety of all of the country was up to you?

Try to come up with a logical plan not just "kill everyone" or "hand it off to the UN" or something. Think in real terms.

2) Would you commit troops? Why or why not?

3) Would you pull the troops at the first sign of difficulty or stick it out? Would you ask for help from the UN? Why or why not?

4) What would be your GOAL to mark the end of the War on Terrorisim. When would you call it over?

If anyone can think of other questions please post them. This could be an interesting discussion if everyone THINKS about it!

There's no way to eliminate terrorism. It will never happen. I'll be happy to bet money, it's a sure thing.

Highway safety is more important anyway.

Look at the statistics. You are more likely to be struck by lighting or win the lottery than get killed in a terrrist attack.

People need to quit spazzing over terrorism and stop destroying the world. The endless wars are what is piling up the corpses faster than anything.

Chute
07-11-2005, 10:07 PM
1) restore the UN
2) get out of saudi arabia
3) get out of iraq
4) get out of afganistan
5) apoligize for overthrowing governments and putting in puppet governments.
6) Stop with middle east politics
7) if they bomb us again nuke em all.


If you did that, the United States would get 9/11'ed so fast it would make your head spin.


What should we do?


Immediately start oil drilling in ANWAR/coastal areas to decrease Saudi influence on the United States. Then threaten the President of Syria with MOABs if he doesnt close his border to terrorists. Next, immediately destroy all of Irans nuclear reactors. Impose every possible sanction on Iran, and anytime their government is involved in act of terrorism or even makes a vieled threat, make them pay for it so dearly they will reconsider ever doing it again.


Secondly, targeted assasinations(including civilian deaths if necessary) of the Iranian Revolutionary Council, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa ****tards brigade, and Baathists members of Syria. Secondly, eject Syria, Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Lebanon, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman from the UN. Then immediately require severe entrance requirements political Moslems before entering the United States. Deny government welfare programs to Islamic Fundamentalists. Demolish any Mosque used to instruct people to commit violence against the west and jail its cleric. Ejection of all Wahhabist organizations in the United States.

Jesusisgod
07-16-2005, 08:01 PM
God said, "I already told the world about Muhammed. He is THE WORTHLESS SHEPARD from Zechariah Chapter 11 (B.C.) and THE FALSE PROPHET from Revelations (A.D.)".

God then had me put this here: (ZECHARIAH CHAPTER 11 BELOW).

(Jesus)(the good shepard)
10 And I took my staff, Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the peoples. 11 And it was broken in that day; and so the poor of the flock that gave heed to me knew that it was the word of Jehovah. 12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give [me] my hire; and if not, forbear. And they weighed for my hire thirty silver-pieces. 13 And Jehovah said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at by them. And I took the thirty silver-pieces, and cast them to the potter in the house of Jehovah.

(Muhammed)(the worthless shepard)
14 And I cut asunder mine other staff, Bands, to break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. 15 And Jehovah said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. 16 For behold, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, who shall not visit those that are about to perish, neither shall seek that which is strayed away, nor heal that which is wounded, nor feed that which is sound; but he will eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their hoofs in pieces. 17 Woe to the worthless shepherd that leaveth the flock! The sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye; his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye utterly darkened.

(JESUS CLARIFIES VERSE 17 IN THE GOSPEL SAYING THAT IF YOUR EYE IS COMPLETELY DARKENED IT MEANS YOU ARE COMPLETELY EVIL.)

JESUS ALSO SAID THAT YOU WILL KNOW IF SOMEONE IS FROM GOD IF THEY ARE LIKE A SHEEP AND NOT LIKE A WOLF - MUHAMMED AND HIS MEN WENT TO BATTLE CHANTING, "KILL! KILL! KILL!" (TABARI XIII:141). - IS THAT THE MENTALITY OF:

A) A SHEEP
B) A WOLF

PEACE - WRITE ME IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR ME TO ASK GOD...I HAVE THE GIFT OF PROPHECY.

theholyspirit
07-20-2005, 01:02 PM
even though Muhammed knew about spiritual channeling and writes about how to channel spirits as did Peter, Paul, Jesus, James, Jude, and John to name a few...

he missed the most important rule - an evil spirit can't say "Jesus rose from the dead"

therefore he was succeptible to false prophecies